That has been proven wrong a few times. One was by the Red Sox last year, I think.

Tekijawa

10-04-2005, 11:27 AM

Not to mention we have Garland and Gload...

TDog

10-04-2005, 11:29 AM

Not to mention we have Garland and Gload...

Garland was drafted by the Cubs anyway.

tebman

10-04-2005, 11:31 AM

That has been proven wrong a few times. One was by the Red Sox last year, I think.
Didn't Mike Royko have a formula for this? As I recall it was the presence of three or more ex-Cubs in order to doom a team.

Iwritecode

10-04-2005, 11:44 AM

That has been proven wrong a few times. One was by the Red Sox last year, I think.

Didn't Mike Royko have a formula for this? As I recall it was the presence of three or more ex-Cubs in order to doom a team.Correct, but it applies only to the World Series, and has been wrong on at least two occasions since WWII.

jortafan

10-04-2005, 04:56 PM

Correct, but it applies only to the World Series, and has been wrong on at least two occasions since WWII.

1960 Pittsburgh Pirates and 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks are the only two teams since 1946 who managed to win a World Series even though they had three or more former Chicago Cubs players on their rosters.

So as I see it, the ex-Cub factor applies unless you happen to be playing the Yankees and can force the World Series to go into a tie in the bottom of the ninth inning, thereby creating the possibility of a last-inning heroic moment.

Insofar as trying to claim it wrong, why bother? It is fun to have a factor of losing associated with the Cubs. Besides, knowing their fans, they probably think it's yet another reason their team is superior (losing is cute).

DSpivack

10-04-2005, 06:44 PM

For those who believe in it, I give you Jeremi Gonzalez.

slavko

10-04-2005, 06:48 PM

For those who believe in it, I give you Jeremi Gonzalez.

Perennially injured Cub pitcher Jeremi. Where have I heard that one before?